How exactly are you going to "wear down" people who want an Apple-like simple, out of the box solution for consumer devices? Does he picture soccer moms compiling their own drivers?
I remember a time when the US had all the good encryption and wasn't allowed to export it. Now the rest of the world will have good encryption and the US won't be allowed to import it.
I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.
Truer words were never spoken. Spot on, my freedom-loving friend!!!
Ironically, what Apple has achieved is that it will not be able to fix its security issues.
Wanna bet? Watch them.
Remember, the San 'Berdino iPhone was an iPhone 5C, which did NOT have the Secure Enclave chip.
The FBI is too stupid to know the difference; but there IS a difference. A BIG difference!
And I ASSURE you that Apple is burning the midnight oil searching for, and closing, any security holes in iOS after this FBI debacle; and is likely pushing more security into hardware; where it is MUCH harder to circumvent by anyone, even Apple.
Name even ONE instance where Apple has reached-out and intentionally and permanently disabled an already-purchased piece of Apple hardware.
They do it to every fucking Superdrive I have ever put in my MacBook Pro (2010, 5.1). Once I stopped accepting updates from them (stopped at Snow Leopard) I bought my 8th Superdrive and lo and behold, no more firmware updates that prevented it from reading discs burned from other disc burners! Amazing! Mother fuckers.
There is your ONE instance; although to be fair, the Superdrives were not technically "bricked", they could read factory made CDs/DVDs and CDs/DVDs they had burned themselves...
Funny, that sounds more like you are a bald-faced liar, or have some sort of mental problem, seriously.
For at least three DECADES, I have known many people with Apple computers of every shape and model, across dozens of versions of both OS X and MacOS (Classic), have owned at least half a dozen Macs myself with many "SuperDrives" across many versions of OS X and MacOS, and in all that time, I have NEVER heard of ANY SuperDrives that would refuse to read discs burned on other burners.
Nor have I EVER heard of ANYONE who has gone through EIGHT SuperDrives. Ever.
The ONLY explanation that makes you NOT a liar or a mental case is if whoever was burning discs that you were trying to read unsuccessfully was trying to burn CD-Rs, but didn't know about "Closing" the discs after burning. Some CD burning software assumes you may want to write more data on a CD-R, and so leaves the disc in the "Open" state. In this state, the TOC (table of contents) of the CD-R is NOT written to the standard location; but rather to a manufacturer-specific location on the CD. That way, the TOC can be revised again and again as data is added in other burning "sessions", until the disc is "closed" ( which writes the TOC to the standard location on the disc). THEN, AND ONLY THEN, can a disc burner OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT BURNED THE DISC, read that disc. And although I have described the CD "Multisession" format (look it up), there is a similar burning-mode for DVD-Rs, and probably BD-Rs, too.
For example, I had a DVD Recorder (one of those ones that is designed as kind of a VCR replacement), and, like a VCR, you could record several different TV programs on it, and the disc was perfectly able to read its own discs, but nothing else could read them, until I "Finalized" the discs. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, could other DVD drives read those discs.
This is the most rational explanation for your otherwise totally unbelievable story.
Well.. when they send updates of the latest IOS to the older iphones.. often stuffs them up, especially the ones that are a few years old now.. (yes its older hardware.. but why release the update to these devices when they know they cant handle it?...) intentionally stuffing devices.. very subtly.. to make you upgrade..
So, (assuming you are the same COWARD as I replied-to above) let me get this straight: Apple abandoned your iPad 1 because they DIDN'T offer you continued updates, AND Apple ruined your iPhone because they DID offer you (you NEVER have to acquiesce to the offer!) continued updates. Have I got that about right?
In the case of your iPhone, didja ever think to wait a tic and do a little online research BEFORE you accepted the offer of an iOS upgrade to your old hardware? I have an iPad 2. I run iOS 7.1.2 on it, even though Apple has OFFERED me iOS 9.1.3 (the current version; which, BTW was SPECIFICALLY designed to offer better performance on OLDER HARDWARE). I MAY install it; but after ignoring ALL of iOS 8 (due to reports of poor performance on old devices), I'm in no hurry to Upgrade. I am going to let the rest of the schmucks like YOU be the Canaries... Meanwhile, I still use my iPad as-is about 8 to 10 hours every single day (I'm posting this on my iPad), and except for the occasional website that crashes Safari, that I think an Update would probably fix, it matters not a whit that my iPad is running an OS TWO major revisions old.
But seriously, just what would YOU do with this same issue of how and how long, to support old technology, if the decision was yours to make? When would YOU think it was ok to cut the cord on old technology? Or would you just continue to do what plagued Windows for years and years: Continue to make both your OS, and the Applications running thereon, bloat-ier and more unstable, as older Frameworks, APIs and libraries are drug forward, zombie-like, long-past where they should be taken out behind the barn and put out of everyone's misery?
What Google is doing isn't exactly that. They're not reaching into the device and disabling it, they are shutting off the cloud services that support it. Unfortunately the net effect on the end user is exactly the same; the device is useless.
As you point out, that is a distinction without a difference.
IMHO, Google should either release a final update that frees the device from it's cloud-symbiont, OR it should simply refund the purchase price (or a significant (like 80%) portion thereof). Or it should simply honor its original tacit agreement to support the device in perpetuity, and keep a couple of servers alive. For a company the size of Google, (who's main Raison d'etre involves the maintaining of thousands upon thousands of Servers) that is hardly a "hardship".
Nothing else is acceptable; nor should it be legal.
1) The code was not there at the time of sale, so this was not by any means the "intent". It came with an update. It was reverted with another update.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. It depends on which version of iOS was "current" at the time the device was purchased. Duh!
2) If your attacker has time to disassemble the hardware, all bets are off unless the media is encrypted and the key is stored nowhere on the device.
Maybe if you designed the system; but Apple's engineers are (fortunately) apparently a little smarter than you.
I don't remember the exact details of how it works; but the idea was specifically targeted at an attacker that had not only physical access to the device (e.g. stolen iPhone with Fingerprint Sensor), but who aimed to thwart the security protocols by swapping-out the Fingerprint Sensor with one that had been "programmed" to their Fingerprint; since the Fingerprints ARE stored in the Fingerprint Sensor (alone), and cannot be accessed directly. All you get from the Sensor is a "Go/No-Go" Response to a Touch. However, the Fingerprint Sensor is "paired" to a particular SoC, and if a mismatch occurs, iOS ASSUMES that you are trying to thwart Security by swapping out the Fingerprint Sensor. It's actually a pretty cool thing for Apple to have thought-of. IIRC, the problem arose when certain third-party repair shops replaced the entire top-assembly of the device (including the Fingerprint Sensor), and did not think to transfer the "old" Sensor to the device. And also did not have the knowledge/tools to "re-pair" after the repair (if in fact that is even possible).
3) Apple DID reach out and brick the phones remotely, in the sense that an update was released which reached out and bricked the phones.
Nice try; but no.
4) Bollocks: it'd be trivial to check whether the customer is bullshitting using the same software check that bricked the phones in the first place.
Really? How would that work? A replaced Fingerprint Sensor (causing a mismatch) is a replaced Fingerprint sensor, period. No way to tell if it was a legitimate "repair" or someone trying to "game" the system.
5) I thought Amazon's remote removal of 1984 was some sort of artistic stunt by the engineers to protest DRM, tbh. But IDK. Removal of DRM from books is practically a social duty, though.
I never heard that it was a "stunt" (politcal statement?) by some "rogue" Amazon engineers. Citation, please? According to Wikipedia, it was done by Amazon on full-dimensional purpose. A quick web search also doesn't come up with anything I saw that would support your claim of it being a "protest" or anything but a dickish move by the Amazon Corporate. So, unless you have a Citation, howabout we just stick with your "IDK", ok?
My ipad 1. Sure, its 'unintentional', for some value of unintentional.
BIG difference here.
1. Does your iPad 1 still function, or did Apple reach out and intentionally BRICK it, ala what Google has announced?
2. The iPad 1 originally shipped with iOS 3.2, and was supported up through iOS 5.1.1, including several updated Applications; which, depending on when you purchased your particular iPad, was up to two major iOS Versions past what was originally installed. There are many, many Android users that would LOVE to have that much "ongoing support" for their phones and tablets. In fact, you can say the the iPad 1 was not "unsupported" until iOS 6 was released on September 19, 2012. I don't know about you; but that sounds like the iPad 1 had 3 years of of official support. Not spectacular; but certainly not even in the same universe as to what the typical Android device receives.
BTW, I have an iPad 2; and it keeps nagging me to install iOS 9.3.1, the CURRENT version of iOS. So, although I would have liked to see the iPad 1 supported a version or two longer; you can hardly claim (well, I guess you can claim anything!) that Apple either: (a) Bricked your iPad; (b) Never provided any upgrade to the OS and software-builds; (c) Shipped the iPad with an already-obsolete version of iOS (ala many Android-based products).
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole.
But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Nice strawman you've got there.
Steve Jobs != Apple, Inc.
I will agree wholeheartedly that Steve J. was an the epitome of "Arrogant Asshole". I've met him; so I speak from some experience.
HOWEVER, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with APPLE pulling a similar stunt to what GOOGLE is doing here. Nothing whatsoever. Because, as I said, there is ZERO evidence that APPLE has EVER done anything even remotely evil as what Google is doing.
Well there was that time where they bricked everyone's iPhone that had had the fingerprint reader replaced. But they reversed that decision and agreed to unbrick the phones, after they got caught and found out that it pissed off customers.
Wrong.
There was code in iOS that was intended to keep someone from illegitimately gaining access to an iPhone by swapping the Fingerprint sensor with one that had been "trained" to the attacker's fingerprint(s) (since the image of the Fingerprint(s) to be compared-to are stored directly in the Fingerprint Sensor). They did that by "pairing" the Fingerprint Sensor and the SoC at the time of manufacture.
The problem happened when someone replaced the Fingerprint Sensor as part of a Repair process. iOS (rightly) detected the mismatch, and rendered the phone unusable (as intended).
But that was simply a poorly-thought-through security measure WITHIN the phone. Apple did NOT "Reach out and Brick" the phones REMOTELY.
And the reason that Apple was originally hesitant to "unbrick" said phones was that they didn't want thieves to be able to stroll into an Apple Store with a STOLEN iPhone and simply CLAIM that it got "bricked".
So, as I said, this is NOT AT ALL the same as what Google is doing with those hubs. Google's stunt is more akin to when Amazon reached out and REMOVED that book from everyone's Kindle, after they had already purchased it. Remember that?
We're discussing Google here. Not Android. However, I already made the point that Android is more open than Google's app store is; it is also more open than iOS is.
Yeah, and Android has the Malware numbers to prove it!
Two days of a bad app being available doesn't seem like the end of the world to me. They caught it, removed it, all done. If that's the price for not having a walled garden I think it's worth paying.
And you would be screaming bloody murder if this had happened on the iOS App Store.
The Revolv Lifetime Subscription, which is included in the $299 you pay for the solution, enables GeoSense automation and remote updates that allows your Revolv to work together seamlessly (and continually update) with the products you already own; for the lifetime of the product.
Holy SHIT! $300!?! And they think they have the right to BREAK that???
Is this a software issue or is this a server issue?
It doesn't make any sense to brick standalone hardware. But, if the unit is heavily dependent on a central server that Nest no longer wishes to maintain, that's a different issue.
Slashdot Mirror
"We'll just wear them down" is an acknowledgement of deafness and stubbornness.
Wasn't there just a Slashdot article where Linus basically crowed about being deaf and stubborn?
Well, there you go!
Not really. Most people are idiots (like the parent poster, for instance)
Except for you, of course.
This "update" ends the "lifetime" and there will thereafter be no more updates.
Very funny.
How exactly are you going to "wear down" people who want an Apple-like simple, out of the box solution for consumer devices? Does he picture soccer moms compiling their own drivers?
Exactly!
Be careful, or they will outlaw mathematics.
Too late.
Indiana already tried that.
Let the US shoot itself in the foot. The rest of the world will encrypt.
If that becomes true, then phones sold in the US will have to conform or they will be considered contraband.
Or stated another way:
"When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."
I remember a time when the US had all the good encryption and wasn't allowed to export it. Now the rest of the world will have good encryption and the US won't be allowed to import it.
Isn't THAT the truth!
Yeah, because Russia, North Korea, China, are much more open and free societies than that evil Amerika!!!!!
Not yet, but we're getting there...
Encryption was listed as a munition before. It can be again.
But so was a G4 Macintosh.
I'd rather die in a nuclear blast in a free country, than live a long life in a police state. The real fight is not to prevent deaths due to terrorism, the real fight is to prevent terrorists from changing who we are. They can only win that fight if we let them.
Truer words were never spoken. Spot on, my freedom-loving friend!!!
You know it's scary times when the guy wearing the tinfoil hat is starting to seem like the most sane person in the room.
Boy, you got THAT right!
Ironically, what Apple has achieved is that it will not be able to fix its security issues.
Wanna bet? Watch them.
Remember, the San 'Berdino iPhone was an iPhone 5C, which did NOT have the Secure Enclave chip.
The FBI is too stupid to know the difference; but there IS a difference. A BIG difference!
And I ASSURE you that Apple is burning the midnight oil searching for, and closing, any security holes in iOS after this FBI debacle; and is likely pushing more security into hardware; where it is MUCH harder to circumvent by anyone, even Apple.
They are QUITE serious about this.
Curtailing legal gun ownership is not going to make guns disappear from the hands of criminals overnight, but you have to start somewhere
No, you don't.
Name even ONE instance where Apple has reached-out and intentionally and permanently disabled an already-purchased piece of Apple hardware.
They do it to every fucking Superdrive I have ever put in my MacBook Pro (2010, 5.1). Once I stopped accepting updates from them (stopped at Snow Leopard) I bought my 8th Superdrive and lo and behold, no more firmware updates that prevented it from reading discs burned from other disc burners! Amazing! Mother fuckers.
There is your ONE instance; although to be fair, the Superdrives were not technically "bricked", they could read factory made CDs/DVDs and CDs/DVDs they had burned themselves...
Funny, that sounds more like you are a bald-faced liar, or have some sort of mental problem, seriously.
For at least three DECADES, I have known many people with Apple computers of every shape and model, across dozens of versions of both OS X and MacOS (Classic), have owned at least half a dozen Macs myself with many "SuperDrives" across many versions of OS X and MacOS, and in all that time, I have NEVER heard of ANY SuperDrives that would refuse to read discs burned on other burners.
Nor have I EVER heard of ANYONE who has gone through EIGHT SuperDrives. Ever.
The ONLY explanation that makes you NOT a liar or a mental case is if whoever was burning discs that you were trying to read unsuccessfully was trying to burn CD-Rs, but didn't know about "Closing" the discs after burning. Some CD burning software assumes you may want to write more data on a CD-R, and so leaves the disc in the "Open" state. In this state, the TOC (table of contents) of the CD-R is NOT written to the standard location; but rather to a manufacturer-specific location on the CD. That way, the TOC can be revised again and again as data is added in other burning "sessions", until the disc is "closed" ( which writes the TOC to the standard location on the disc). THEN, AND ONLY THEN, can a disc burner OTHER THAN THE ONE THAT BURNED THE DISC, read that disc. And although I have described the CD "Multisession" format (look it up), there is a similar burning-mode for DVD-Rs, and probably BD-Rs, too.
For example, I had a DVD Recorder (one of those ones that is designed as kind of a VCR replacement), and, like a VCR, you could record several different TV programs on it, and the disc was perfectly able to read its own discs, but nothing else could read them, until I "Finalized" the discs. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, could other DVD drives read those discs.
This is the most rational explanation for your otherwise totally unbelievable story.
Well.. when they send updates of the latest IOS to the older iphones.. often stuffs them up, especially the ones that are a few years old now.. (yes its older hardware.. but why release the update to these devices when they know they cant handle it?...) intentionally stuffing devices.. very subtly.. to make you upgrade..
So, (assuming you are the same COWARD as I replied-to above) let me get this straight: Apple abandoned your iPad 1 because they DIDN'T offer you continued updates, AND Apple ruined your iPhone because they DID offer you (you NEVER have to acquiesce to the offer!) continued updates. Have I got that about right?
In the case of your iPhone, didja ever think to wait a tic and do a little online research BEFORE you accepted the offer of an iOS upgrade to your old hardware? I have an iPad 2. I run iOS 7.1.2 on it, even though Apple has OFFERED me iOS 9.1.3 (the current version; which, BTW was SPECIFICALLY designed to offer better performance on OLDER HARDWARE). I MAY install it; but after ignoring ALL of iOS 8 (due to reports of poor performance on old devices), I'm in no hurry to Upgrade. I am going to let the rest of the schmucks like YOU be the Canaries... Meanwhile, I still use my iPad as-is about 8 to 10 hours every single day (I'm posting this on my iPad), and except for the occasional website that crashes Safari, that I think an Update would probably fix, it matters not a whit that my iPad is running an OS TWO major revisions old.
But seriously, just what would YOU do with this same issue of how and how long, to support old technology, if the decision was yours to make? When would YOU think it was ok to cut the cord on old technology? Or would you just continue to do what plagued Windows for years and years: Continue to make both your OS, and the Applications running thereon, bloat-ier and more unstable, as older Frameworks, APIs and libraries are drug forward, zombie-like, long-past where they should be taken out behind the barn and put out of everyone's misery?
What Google is doing isn't exactly that. They're not reaching into the device and disabling it, they are shutting off the cloud services that support it. Unfortunately the net effect on the end user is exactly the same; the device is useless.
As you point out, that is a distinction without a difference.
IMHO, Google should either release a final update that frees the device from it's cloud-symbiont, OR it should simply refund the purchase price (or a significant (like 80%) portion thereof). Or it should simply honor its original tacit agreement to support the device in perpetuity, and keep a couple of servers alive. For a company the size of Google, (who's main Raison d'etre involves the maintaining of thousands upon thousands of Servers) that is hardly a "hardship".
Nothing else is acceptable; nor should it be legal.
Caveat Emptor only goes so far.
1) The code was not there at the time of sale, so this was not by any means the "intent". It came with an update. It was reverted with another update.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. It depends on which version of iOS was "current" at the time the device was purchased. Duh!
2) If your attacker has time to disassemble the hardware, all bets are off unless the media is encrypted and the key is stored nowhere on the device.
Maybe if you designed the system; but Apple's engineers are (fortunately) apparently a little smarter than you.
I don't remember the exact details of how it works; but the idea was specifically targeted at an attacker that had not only physical access to the device (e.g. stolen iPhone with Fingerprint Sensor), but who aimed to thwart the security protocols by swapping-out the Fingerprint Sensor with one that had been "programmed" to their Fingerprint; since the Fingerprints ARE stored in the Fingerprint Sensor (alone), and cannot be accessed directly. All you get from the Sensor is a "Go/No-Go" Response to a Touch. However, the Fingerprint Sensor is "paired" to a particular SoC, and if a mismatch occurs, iOS ASSUMES that you are trying to thwart Security by swapping out the Fingerprint Sensor. It's actually a pretty cool thing for Apple to have thought-of. IIRC, the problem arose when certain third-party repair shops replaced the entire top-assembly of the device (including the Fingerprint Sensor), and did not think to transfer the "old" Sensor to the device. And also did not have the knowledge/tools to "re-pair" after the repair (if in fact that is even possible).
3) Apple DID reach out and brick the phones remotely, in the sense that an update was released which reached out and bricked the phones.
Nice try; but no.
4) Bollocks: it'd be trivial to check whether the customer is bullshitting using the same software check that bricked the phones in the first place.
Really? How would that work? A replaced Fingerprint Sensor (causing a mismatch) is a replaced Fingerprint sensor, period. No way to tell if it was a legitimate "repair" or someone trying to "game" the system.
5) I thought Amazon's remote removal of 1984 was some sort of artistic stunt by the engineers to protest DRM, tbh. But IDK. Removal of DRM from books is practically a social duty, though.
I never heard that it was a "stunt" (politcal statement?) by some "rogue" Amazon engineers. Citation, please? According to Wikipedia, it was done by Amazon on full-dimensional purpose. A quick web search also doesn't come up with anything I saw that would support your claim of it being a "protest" or anything but a dickish move by the Amazon Corporate. So, unless you have a Citation, howabout we just stick with your "IDK", ok?
My ipad 1. Sure, its 'unintentional', for some value of unintentional.
BIG difference here.
1. Does your iPad 1 still function, or did Apple reach out and intentionally BRICK it, ala what Google has announced?
2. The iPad 1 originally shipped with iOS 3.2, and was supported up through iOS 5.1.1, including several updated Applications; which, depending on when you purchased your particular iPad, was up to two major iOS Versions past what was originally installed. There are many, many Android users that would LOVE to have that much "ongoing support" for their phones and tablets. In fact, you can say the the iPad 1 was not "unsupported" until iOS 6 was released on September 19, 2012. I don't know about you; but that sounds like the iPad 1 had 3 years of of official support. Not spectacular; but certainly not even in the same universe as to what the typical Android device receives.
BTW, I have an iPad 2; and it keeps nagging me to install iOS 9.3.1, the CURRENT version of iOS. So, although I would have liked to see the iPad 1 supported a version or two longer; you can hardly claim (well, I guess you can claim anything!) that Apple either: (a) Bricked your iPad; (b) Never provided any upgrade to the OS and software-builds; (c) Shipped the iPad with an already-obsolete version of iOS (ala many Android-based products).
So, as I said: BIG difference!
Dude. Steve Jobs was an asshole. He was an asshole who wanted the Apple user experience to be good, and he was absolutely a hyper-competent asshole. But that doesn't change the sort of personality he had.
Nice strawman you've got there.
Steve Jobs != Apple, Inc.
I will agree wholeheartedly that Steve J. was an the epitome of "Arrogant Asshole". I've met him; so I speak from some experience.
HOWEVER, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with APPLE pulling a similar stunt to what GOOGLE is doing here. Nothing whatsoever. Because, as I said, there is ZERO evidence that APPLE has EVER done anything even remotely evil as what Google is doing.
Well there was that time where they bricked everyone's iPhone that had had the fingerprint reader replaced. But they reversed that decision and agreed to unbrick the phones, after they got caught and found out that it pissed off customers.
Wrong.
There was code in iOS that was intended to keep someone from illegitimately gaining access to an iPhone by swapping the Fingerprint sensor with one that had been "trained" to the attacker's fingerprint(s) (since the image of the Fingerprint(s) to be compared-to are stored directly in the Fingerprint Sensor). They did that by "pairing" the Fingerprint Sensor and the SoC at the time of manufacture.
The problem happened when someone replaced the Fingerprint Sensor as part of a Repair process. iOS (rightly) detected the mismatch, and rendered the phone unusable (as intended).
But that was simply a poorly-thought-through security measure WITHIN the phone. Apple did NOT "Reach out and Brick" the phones REMOTELY.
And the reason that Apple was originally hesitant to "unbrick" said phones was that they didn't want thieves to be able to stroll into an Apple Store with a STOLEN iPhone and simply CLAIM that it got "bricked".
So, as I said, this is NOT AT ALL the same as what Google is doing with those hubs. Google's stunt is more akin to when Amazon reached out and REMOVED that book from everyone's Kindle, after they had already purchased it. Remember that?
We're discussing Google here. Not Android. However, I already made the point that Android is more open than Google's app store is; it is also more open than iOS is.
Yeah, and Android has the Malware numbers to prove it!
Two days of a bad app being available doesn't seem like the end of the world to me. They caught it, removed it, all done. If that's the price for not having a walled garden I think it's worth paying.
And you would be screaming bloody murder if this had happened on the iOS App Store.
The Revolv Lifetime Subscription, which is included in the $299 you pay for the solution, enables GeoSense automation and remote updates that allows your Revolv to work together seamlessly (and continually update) with the products you already own; for the lifetime of the product.
Holy SHIT! $300!?! And they think they have the right to BREAK that???
Let the lawsuits begin!
Is this a software issue or is this a server issue?
It doesn't make any sense to brick standalone hardware. But, if the unit is heavily dependent on a central server that Nest no longer wishes to maintain, that's a different issue.
How?
How does this square with "Lifetime Updates"?
The nest CEO seems to think he's Steve Jobs though he's only getting the jackass part of the equation right.
Name even ONE instance where Apple has reached-out and intentionally and permanently disabled an already-purchased piece of Apple hardware.
Well? I'm waiting...